On Proportionality, Civilian Casualties, and Why Israel Has Already Lost

Posted by DJK, Brave New Films at 6:21 AM on January 9, 2009.

Once again, I watch in horror as the Israeli military pounds a densely populated area in "self defense," killing civilians, restricting aid, and causing a humanitarian disaster. And I wonder again why Israel, its supporters, and the Western media just don't get it.

Yes, Hamas fired rockets into Israel. Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself from such attacks. But by bombarding and invading Gaza, killing hundreds of civilians, destroying infrastructure, and blocking aid to Gaza, Israel has abandoned the moral high ground and has become worse than the Hamas terrorists they decry. And that's why Israel has already lost.

As of today, the United Nations estimates that approximately 165 Palestinian civilians have been killed, representing 25 percent of all Palestinian casualties. Since fighting began, 4 Israeli civilians have been killed by Hamas rockets.

The problem is proportionality, a word I've actually been happy to hear used commonly in this discussion. Former secretary of defense Robert McNamara talks about it in Errol Morris's excellent Oscar-winning documentary The Fog of War and how "proportionality should be a guideline in war." I agree.

Maybe it's because I'm naïve that I don’t see how you can claim the moral high ground and that you are both good guy and victim when your side is killing 41 times more innocent civilians than the “terrorists.” Maybe it's because I am not an expert on the Middle East, so I don't understand why killing 41 civilians is a proportional, appropriate, and legal way to show that killing a single civilian is wrong.

Imagine a serial murderer has barricaded himself in a house with two hostages. Should the police destroy the house, killing everyone inside? Why not? Doesn't the blame rest with the murderer for hiding amongst innocent people? Shouldn't the murderer have known that the enraged police would attack without mercy? What if a gang operated brazenly from a neighborhood. Should the neighborhood be sealed off and 41 civilians killed for each of the gang's victims?

Even if you believe that civilian deaths are unavoidable in the effort to eliminate a greater threat, you must at least entertain the notions of proportionality and limits. If not, you may risk becoming a monster that a society and yourself should fear. If you feel that accomplishing any goal is worth the death of limitless numbers of innocent people, I'm sure you would agree that that's a problem.

A common argument supporting Israel's actions is that Hamas purposefully targets civilians while Israel kills civilians accidentally after taking great pains to avoid civilian casualties.

Again, I don’t mean to be naïve, but how is "accidentally" killing 41 civilians morally superior to purposefully killing one? And that's made even worse when you consider that many of the "accidental" civilian casualties caused by Israeli airstrikes cannot truly be called accidents.

Israel has bombed several mosques and civilian structures claiming Hamas is using them as bases or weapons caches. A recent Israeli airstrike on a mosque during evening prayers killed at least 11 worshippers. Just recently, Israel fired missiles that landed near a clearly marked UN school being used as a civilian shelter, killing over 40 people, including 10 children and 5 women. Israel claimed that mortars had been fired from the school, which was disputed by both the UN and residents.

In both these cases, the Israeli military probably knew that bombing these targets would kill civilians, but they bombed them anyway. They concluded that it was acceptable and worth it to kill dozens of civilians if it meant destroying these targets. This is not a wild accusation -- this is simply how militaries operate when choosing targets and when to hit them.

That means the civilian deaths caused by the strikes were the opposite of "accidental" -- they were totally predictable and usually predicted, just as dropping a 2,000-pound bomb on a building in the most densely populated area in the world will inevitably kill civilians, even if the bomb hits its target perfectly. You can argue whether or not it is justifiable to kill civilians if it means destroying a legitimate military target, but don't call something an accident if you know for certain that your actions will cause it. And don't expect the families of those "accidental" casualties to forgive you. Accidents happen in America all the time -- and we sure have a lot of lawsuits.

Israel has made clear that they feel no responsibility or remorse whatsoever for civilian casualties they cause and that 100% of the blame rests with Hamas. Israel obviously hopes to benefit from this depiction of events because it might help turn Palestinians against Hamas.

That bears repeating. Israel hopes to benefit from the deaths of Palestinian civilians by taking no responsibility for them. Israel hopes that Palestinians, the victims of Israeli airstrikes, will join forces with Israel to condemn Hamas, the targets of the airstrikes. What are the chances of either of these things happening? Is this Israel's strategy for peace?

Another common argument is that Israel should be able to do whatever it takes to defend itself. Does that include doing the wrong thing or doing things that actually make Israel less safe? Is putting Israel in greater danger an acceptable and wise way to make Israel safe? We must remember that the opposite of doing nothing isn't doing the wrong thing.

Torture comes to mind. The Bush administration vociferously and continuously argued (and continues to) that the US must be allowed to do anything -- anything -- to defend itself. One of those "anythings" was torture, a decision that will recruit terrorists and cost American lives for generations to come. A decision that former Navy general counsel Alberto Mora called "a mistake of massive proportions" and one of the main causes of US combat deaths. 

There is no short-term gain that could ever be worth the long-term damage America suffered because of our torture policy. And there is no short-term safety Israel can gain that is worth the long-term danger that comes from killing Palestinian civilians at a rate of 40:1.

Tagged as: israel, palestinian, gaza, united nations, hamas, civilian casualties

Jonathan Kim blogs under the name DJK. He is a Co-Producer at Brave New Films. He co-produces the Fox Attacks series and blogs for the bravenewfilms.org and foxattacks.com websites.